Jump to content
Snarf

Gender And Peace

Recommended Posts

the link's broken, at least for me.  I am failing to appreciate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seemed like the most useful concept to me:

 

May Schott, who uses “witness†as a mechanism for narrativizing peace.

 

Could be a case for 1st person narratives.  Could also be a rationale for reps type Ks (particularly apocalyptic images-type arguments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sjoberg is tightt. writes the best fem IR articles. 

 

The affirmatives representations of “war†as a singular, bounded event ensures the continuation of everyday militarism and violence, turning the case.

Sjoberg ‘6 (Laura,  BA, University of Chicago; Ph.D., University of Southern California School of International Relations; J.D. Boston College Law School, is Assistant Professor of Political Science @ University of Florida “Gender, justice, and the wars in Iraqâ€, page number below, CMR)

 

War is best understood as a continuum, or a process, rather than as a discrete event (Cuomo 1996, 31; Reardon 1985). An event starts and ends. The human security concerns above continue before, during, and after the "event" that the word "war" usually describes. The problem with not classifying these processes as and is that they are then accorded less weight in political discourse without these labels (Buzan l99l). It is important to recognize the human security impacts of traditional wars and other forms of political violence. Without recognizing this violence as war, political scientists risk missing the major sources of women's suffering in global politics. Crisis-based ethics ignore the suffering that leads up to and follows wars, taking attention away from everyday violence. These approaches are band-aids on gunshot wounds; they fail to address the major sources and manifestations of gender subordination in international conflict (Cuomo 1996). Chris Cuomo suggests that, "the spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, bounded sphere indicate assumptions that war is a realm of human activity vastly removed from normal life" (I996, 30). War is not one event, separated from politics as usual. Instead, war is a process that affects and is affected by daily political life.

A war happens when an intelligence operation unseats a government, when a terrorist bombs a coffee shop, and when a high school student opens fire at his school. In these situations, violence destroys individuals' security. Betty Reardon calls the global political arena a "war system," a continuum of physical and structural violence resulting from the masculine nature of the international political arena (1985). The war system understanding does not claim that all violence on the continuum is equally bad, but only as a claim that there are no clear delineating points between events of violence because violence is a continuum, not a series of unrelated, discrete events.

The argument that war should not be seen as an isolated event serves as a powerful critique of just war theories' traditional definitions of war. The just war tradition assumes as foundational that war is a discrete event. Very few just war theorists analyze physical or structural violence before or after a war when they make determinations concerning the justice of the war. The just war tradition has no systemic measures to account for the suffering of a family that ate contaminated food during a food shortage in a war, went to a hospital lacking electricity and doctors, and had chronic stomach problems for the next twenty years. The immunity principle cannot count a woman whose malnourishment in a time of conflict deprived her breast milk of nourishment to feed her child, leaving the child chronically developmentally disabled. Just war has no way to analyze the impact of a war on a man who took the train to a job forty miles from home until the war destroyed the train. The just war tradition is inadequate to [end page 52] identify and analyze the institutional and structural violence that is an important part of the impact of combat. This inadequacy is in itself complicity: without a moral framework to judge these impacts of war, they will continue to fly under the radar. The just war tradition is isolated from the everyday life impacts of global political conflicts; this isolation helps obscure those impacts.

Instead of taking account of militarism and structural violence, the gendered just war tradition creates the illusion that the moral problems with war are being fixed. The political employment of just war words gives the impression that each decision to engage in violence must pass a rigorous moral test. To listen to leaders of belligerent nations talk, only the wars that meet the restrictive limits of just war theories occur. If we listen to their opponents, their just war calculus has erred unforgivably. Even if the just war tradition was taken seriously by belligerents, most just war theories only attempt to regulate a small fraction of the coercive force in the world today: that which occurs in organized combat between recognized and recognizable combatants (Cuomo 1996). Formal war between belligerents is only one forum. Other wars take place other places: in covert operations, in military prisons, in bedrooms, in minefields, and in other places where the just war tradition does not know how to look.

Still, Betty Reardon's classification of all sexism as violent and all violence as sexism is overly simplistic. At the very deepest level, it may hold some truth, but it will do little to sort out the morality of war-making or war-fighting. A better way to classify violence is to look at the gendered implications of various violences. Certainly, coercive violence usually if no( always involves competition and domination. There is gendered content to competition and domination; it is a pan of a gendered power system of social and political relations (Hooper 1998). Gendered violence is violence that needs gendered assumptions to make it possible. All violence is not war, but war is more than declared battles between recognized states. It is competition where the competing happens through the use of coercive violence. Competitive use of coercive force generally relies on the masculinization of self and the feminization of the enemy. This cycle of genderings is not a series of events but a social continuum.

This modified understanding of a war system reflects feminisms' convictions that violences are continua that run through different levels of interpersonal and political interaction. A "decision to go to war" is at first glance somewhat paradoxical: if a "war system" is always around us, does going to war have meaning? Recognizing war as a continuum does not mean that wars do not have analytically distinct identities. Instead, a "war system" interpretation of war has three implications: first, wars start earlier and go on longer than traditional interpretations identify; second, wars reach deeper into societies than conventional reports would portray; finally, wars can be fought with a wider variety of means by a wider variety of actors than previously imagined. This interpretation relies on intellectual and emotional connections with those who are affected by war; feminist empathy analyzes levels of violence and war generally neglected by reactive approaches. [page 52-53]

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was got 1st place in this scholarship in Kansas. If you win on the state level you get a free trip to DC for a week to meet policy makers and run simulations about key peace issues. Unfortunately, that workshop fell on NFL nationals this year, but the scholarship money in and of itself is really nice. 

Did you mean to post that in this thread? Or is this actually relevant and I'm missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...